United States v. Higgins: “Continuous-Dealer Residence Nexus” and Refreshed-Staleness Doctrine Fortified by the Sixth Circuit

Introduction

Citation: United States v. Rodney Hamilton Higgins, Jr., No. 24-5331 (6th Cir. 2025).

The Sixth Circuit’s published decision in United States v. Higgins affirms the denial of a suppression motion after a large drug seizure from Rodney Higgins’s apartment in London, Kentucky. The court confronts two recurring Fourth Amendment controversies:

What suffices to create a nexus between suspected drug trafficking and the suspect’s residence?
Under what circumstances must a district court grant a Franks hearing to test the truthfulness of a search-warrant affidavit?

While the panel ultimately deems the warrant valid, its elaboration of the “continuous-dealer residence nexus” and its articulation of a refreshed-staleness doctrine for electronic communications provide important guidance for future search-warrant litigation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit (Judges Thapar, Nalbandian, and Readler) holds:

The warrant affidavit established probable cause and a sufficient nexus because (a) Higgins was a known, continuous drug dealer, and (b) his own real-time text messages directing a buyer to his “crib” refreshed any staleness that might have infected earlier controlled-buy information.
The district court correctly denied a Franks hearing; Higgins failed to make the required “substantial preliminary showing” that the agent knowingly or recklessly misrepresented or omitted critical facts.
Because probable cause existed, the panel did not need to rely on the good-faith exception, though it acknowledged it would have applied.
Accordingly, Higgins’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute is affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) – Quoted for the proposition that probable cause is “not a high bar.” Sets the tone for a forgiving standard.
United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) – The court’s recent en banc opinion resolved intra- and inter-circuit tension over whether ongoing drug dealing, standing alone, usually creates probable cause to search a dealer’s home. Higgins leans heavily on Sanders, applying its rule that when officers show (1) a suspect is a known drug dealer engaged in continual operations, and (2) the residence is known, the nexus requirement is ordinarily satisfied.
United States v. Simmons, 129 F.4th 382 (6th Cir. 2025) – Cited to confirm that “known drug-dealer status” may be demonstrated by extensive or repeated dealing plus prior convictions.
United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 1998) – Supplies the “refreshed staleness” principle: newer evidence can rehabilitate older, otherwise stale facts.
United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2009) – A counter-precedent emphasizing staleness concerns; Higgins distinguished it because the present affidavit contained fresh texts.
United States v. Lewis, 81 F.4th 640 (6th Cir. 2023) – Defendant invoked Lewis (deficient affidavit in child-pornography context); panel distinguished it, emphasizing that the Higgins affidavit was fact-rich and not conclusory.
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) – Governs evidentiary hearings on alleged affidavit falsehoods.
United States v. Davis, 84 F.4th 672 (6th Cir. 2023) – Extends Franks to material omissions; sets a higher “intent to mislead” standard for omissions.
United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997 (6th Cir. 2019) & United States v. Henderson, 2024 WL 3549582 – Supply standards of review (clear error) and examples of unsuccessful Franks challenges.

Legal Reasoning

a. Probable Cause and the Nexus Requirement

The court applies a two-step framework:

Known continuous dealer – Controlled buys, informant statements of at least ten prior one-pound meth sales, and Higgins’s seven-year trafficking sentence collectively branded him a “known drug dealer.”
Connection to residence – Higgins was a listed tenant, and most significantly, 24 hours before the warrant he texted the buyer: “got more clear … more slow” and invited the buyer to “my crib.” The buyer also made a recorded call and was told to come to the same address.

Together, these facts, under Sanders, made it “fairly probable” that drugs would be in the apartment.

b. Staleness

Although the last controlled buy occurred 55 days earlier, the panel held that the day-old electronic communications “refreshed” any staleness (Spikes), distinguishing Frechette, where no such refresh occurred.

c. Dismissal of Counter-Arguments

No direct surveillance at apartment? Not required; courts eschew a “model fact pattern.”
Linguistic code insufficient? Informant’s reliable interpretation + corroboration by other texts sufficed.
Conclusions vs. facts? Unlike the single-sentence assertion rejected in Lewis, this affidavit set forth a months-long investigation with quotes, dates, weights, and tenant records.

d. Franks-Hearing Denial

Higgins asserted three alleged defects; none crossed the “substantial preliminary showing” threshold:

Missing Text Messages – Absence of screenshots ≠ evidence of falsity, especially when other recovered messages corroborated the content.
Officer’s Interpretation of Code – An interpretation (supported by an informant with demonstrated reliability) is not a false statement.
Unspecified Residence of Duffel-Bag Observation – Even if an omission, it was not critical because probable cause rested on fresher, explicit communications.

Without intentional falsity or critical omission, the district court was well within its discretion to refuse a hearing.

Impact of the Decision

Solidifies the “Continuous-Dealer Residence Nexus.” By relying on Sanders and embellishing it with real-time electronic communications, the panel sets a user-friendly template for agents drafting narcotics warrants. If an affidavit shows (1) ongoing dealing, (2) defendant’s residence, plus (3) any contemporaneous customer-directing communication, probable cause is almost assured.
Electronic Communications as Staleness Antidote. The court’s use of a 24-hour-old text message to “refresh” two-month-old controlled-buy data provides prosecutors a clear blueprint: obtain recent digital chatter to neutralize staleness arguments.
Upholds High Bar for Franks Hearings. The ruling reinforces the presumption of warrant validity and clarifies that missing evidence or competing interpretations rarely justify an evidentiary hearing absent concrete proof of intent to mislead.
Law-Enforcement Drafting Practices. Agents now have guidance to quote coded messages, explain code meaning via trusted sources, and cross-reference prior convictions to buttress “known dealer” status.
Circuit Influence. Other circuits grappling with the nexus question—especially post-SCOTUS’s denial of cert. in Sanders—may look to Higgins as a pragmatic application of the en banc rule.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause: A common-sense judgment, based on facts, that there is a fair probability evidence of a crime is in a specific place. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nexus Requirement: The factual link connecting criminal activity to the place officers want to search. Without the nexus, even overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing elsewhere is insufficient.
Staleness: Concern that older facts may no longer reflect current reality. Courts ask whether the evidence is too old to establish probable cause. Recent corroboration can “refresh” stale data.
Franks Hearing: An evidentiary hearing where a defendant may challenge the truthfulness of statements in a warrant affidavit. To win such a hearing, the defendant must preliminarily show: (1) a deliberate or reckless falsehood (or intentional omission) and (2) that, absent that defect, probable cause would have been lacking.
Good-Faith Exception: Even if a warrant is later found invalid, evidence may still be admissible if officers reasonably relied on the warrant. Here, the panel noted good-faith would apply, but it never had to reach the issue.

Conclusion

United States v. Higgins fortifies a prosecution-friendly framework for residence searches of suspected drug traffickers. The opinion blends Sanders’s “continuous dealer” rule with a pragmatic, text-message-driven fresh-evidence approach to staleness. By reaffirming the rigorous standards governing Franks hearings, the Sixth Circuit also shields honest agents from fishing-expedition challenges.

Practitioners should note three principal takeaways:

Demonstrate ongoing and large-scale dealing to ease the nexus burden;
Use contemporaneous electronic communications to refresh older investigative facts; and
Expect strict gate-keeping before any court will convene a Franks hearing.

Collectively, these lessons mark Higgins as a significant waypoint in the post-Sanders evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the Sixth Circuit.